3. The Chief Argument of the Municipalisers Tested by Events

The above-quoted categorical assertions of John and Kostrov
were made in April 1906, i. e., on the eve of the First Duma. I argued (see
my pamphlet Revision,
etc.[1]
)
that the peasantry was in favour of nationalisation, but I was told that
the decisions of the congresses of the Peasant
Union[4] did not prove anything, that they were in spired by the
ideologists of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, that the masses of the
peasants would never support such demands.

Since then this question has been documentarily answered by the First,
and Second Dumas. The representatives of the peasantry from all parts of
Russia spoke, in the First and particularly in the. Second Duma. No one,
with the possible exception of the publicists of
Rossiya[5] and Novoye Vremya, could deny that the
political and economic demands of the peasant masses found
expression in both those Dumas. One would have thought that the idea of
nationalising the peasants’ lands should be finally buried now, after the
independent declarations made by the peasant deputies in the presence of
the other parties. One would have thought that the supporters of John and
Kostrov could easily have got the peasant deputies to raise an outcry in
the Duma against nationalisation. One would have thought that
Social-Democracy, led by the Mensheviks, should really have
“isolated” from the revolution the advocates of nationalisation
who are rousing an all-Russian counter-revolutionary Vendée.

As a matter of fact, something different happened. In the First Duma it
was Stishinsky and Gurko who showed. concern for the peasants’ own
(John’s italics) lands. In both Dumas it was the extreme
Right-wingers who, jointly
with the spokesmen of the government, defended private ownership of the
land and were opposed to any form of public ownership of land, whether by
municipalisation, nationalisation, or socialisation. In both Dumas it was
the peasant deputies from all parts of Russia who declared for
nationalisation.

Comrade Maslov wrote in 1905: “Nationalisation of the land as a
means of solving [?] the agrarian problem in Russia at the present time
cannot be accepted, first of all [note this “first of all”] because
it is hopelessly utopian. Nationalisation of the land presupposes the
transfer of all the land to the state. But will the peasants, and
particularly the homestead. peasants, voluntarily agree to transfer their
land to anyone?” (P. Maslov, A Critique of Agrarian
Programmes, Moscow, 1905, p. 20.)

Thus, in 1905, nationalisation was “first of all”
hopelessly utopian because the peasants would not agree to it.

In 1907, in March, the same Maslov wrote: “All the Narodnik
groups [the Trudoviks, the Popular Socialists, and the
Socialist-Revolutionaries] are advocating nationalisation of the land in
one form or another.” (Obrazovaniye, 1907, No. 3, p. 100.)

There’s your new Vendée! There’s your all-Russian
revolt of the peasants against nationalisation!

But instead of pondering over the ridiculous position in which the
people who spoke and wrote about a peasant Vendée against
nationalisation now find themselves, in the light of the experience of the
two Dumas, instead of trying to explain the mistake which he made in 1905,
P. Maslov behaved like Ivan the Forgetful. He preferred to forget
the words I have just quoted, and the speeches at the Stockholm Congress!
Moreover, with the same light-heartedness with which he, in 1905, asserted
that the peasants would not agree, he now asserts the
opposite. Listen:

...“The Narodniks, reflecting the interests and hopes of the small
proprietors [listen to this!], had to declare in favour of
nationalisation” (ibid.).

There you have a sample of the scientific scrupulousness of our municipalisers!
In solving a difficult problem before the elected representatives of
the peasants from the whole of Russia made their political declarations, the
municipalisers, on behalf of the small proprietors, asserted one thing,
and after those declarations in the two Dumas they assert, on behalf
of the very same “small proprietors”, the very opposite.

It should be mentioned, as a particular curiosity, that Maslov explains this
tendency towards nationalisation. on the part of the Russian peasants as being
due not to any special conditions of the peasant agrarian revolution, but to the
general characteristics of the small proprietor in capitalist
society. That is incredible, but it is a fact:

“The small proprietor,” Maslov announces, “is most of all
afraid of the competition and domination of the big proprietor, of the
domination of capital”.... You are mixing things up, Mr. Maslov. To put
the big (feudal) landowner on a par with the owner of capital means
repeating the prejudices of the petty bourgeoisie. The peasant is fighting so
energetically against the feudal latifundia precisely because at the present
historical moment he represents the free, capitalist evolution of agriculture.

... “Being unable to contend with capital in the economic field,
the small proprietor puts his faith in government authority, which should
come to the aid of the small proprietor against the big one.... The reason
the Russian peasant has hoped for centuries to be protected from the
landlords and government officials by the central authority, the reason
Napoleon in France, relying for support on the peasants, was able to crush
the Republic, was the hope the peasants entertained of receiving aid from
the central authority.” (Obrazovaniye, p. 100.)

How magnificently Pyotr Maslov argues! In the first place, what has
nationalisation of the land to do with the fact that at the present historical
moment the Russian peasant is displaying the same characteristics as the
French peasant under. Napoleon? The French peasant under Napoleon was not and
could not be in favour of nationalisation. You are rather incoherent,
Mr. Maslov!

Secondly, what has the struggle against capital to do with it? We are comparing
peasant ownership of land with the nationalisation of all the land, including
that of the peasants. The French peasant under Napoleon clung fanatically to
the small property as a barrier against capital, but the Russian
peasant.... Once again, my dear fellow,
where is the connection between the beginning and the end of your argument?.

Thirdly, in speaking about the hopes placed in government authority, Maslov
makes it appear that the peasants do not understand the harmfulness of
bureaucracy, do not understand the importance of local self-government, where as
he, the progressive Pyotr Maslov, does appreciate all this. This criticism of
the Narodniks is much too simplified. A reference to the famous Land Bill (the
Bill of the 104), which the Trudoviks introduced in the First and Second Dumas,
will suffice to show the falsity of Maslov’s argument (or hint?). The
facts show, on the contrary, that the principles of local
self-government and of hostility towards a bureaucratic solution of the land
problem are more clearly expressed in the Trudovik Bill than in the
programme of the Social-Democrats written according to Maslov! In our programme
we speak only about “democratic principles” in electing local bodies,
whereas the Trudovik Bill (Clause 16) distinctly and directly provides for the
election of local self-governing bodies on the basis of “universal, equal
and direct suffrage by secret ballot”. Moreover, the Bill provides for
local land committees—which, as is known, the Social-Democrats
support—to be elected in the same. way, and which are to organise the
discussion on the land reform and make preparations for carrying it out (Clauses
17-20). The bureaucratic method of carrying out, the agrarian reform was
advocated by the Cadets, and not by the Trudoviks, by the liberal
bourgeoisie, and not by the peas ants. Why did Maslov have to distort these
well-known facts?

Fourthly, in his remarkable “explanation” of why the small
proprietors “had to declare in favour of nationalisation”, Maslov
lays stress on the peasants’ hope of receiving, protection from the
central authority. That is the point. of distinction between
municipalisation and nationalisation: in the one case there are local
authorities, in the other case, the central authority. That is Maslov’s
pet idea, the economic and political implications of which we shall deal with in
greater detail further on. Here we will point out that Maslov is
dodging the question put to him by the history of our revolution,
namely, why the peasants arenot afraid of the nationalisation of their own land. That
is the crux of the question!

But that is not all. A particularly piquant feature of Maslov’s attempt to
explain the class roots of the Trudovik policy of nationalisation as against
municipalisation is the, following: Maslov conceals from his readers
the fact that on the question of the actual disposal of the land the Narodniks
were also in favour of local self-governing bodies! Maslov’s talk
about the peasants placing their “hopes” in the central
authority is mere intellectualist tittle-tattle about the peasants. Read Clause
16 of the Land Bill that the Trudoviks introduced in both Dumas. Here is the
text of this clause:

“The management of the national land fund must be entrusted to
local self-governing bodies, elected by universal, equal, and direct
suffrage by secret ballot, which shall act independently within the limits
laid down. by the law.”

Compare this with the corresponding demand made in our programme: “...The
R.S.D.L.P. demands: ...(4) the confiscation of privately owned lands, except
small holdings, which shall be placed at the disposal of large local
self-governing bodies (comprising urban and rural. districts, as per Point 3)
to be elected on democratic principles”....

What is the difference here from the point of, view of the comparative rights
of central and local authorities? In what way does “management”
differ from “disposal”?

Why, in speaking about the attitude of the Trudoviks towards nationalisation,
did Maslov have to conceal from his readers—and perhaps from himself
too—the contents of this Clause 16? Because it completely
shatters the whole of his absurd “municipalisation” theory.

Examine the arguments in favour of this municipalisation that Maslov advanced
before the Stockholm Congress, read the Minutes of that Congress; you will find
innumerable allusions to the impossibility of suppressing nationalities, of
oppressing the borderlands, of ignoring the differences of local interests,
etc., etc. Even prior to the Stockholm Congress, I had pointed out to Maslov
(see Revision, etc.,
p. 18[2]
)
that all arguments of this kind are a “sheer mis-
understanding” because our programme— I said— already
recognised the right of self-determination of nationalities as well as
wide local and regional self-government. Consequently,
from that aspect, there was no need, nor was it possible, to
devise any additional “guarantees” against excessive
centralisation, bureaucracy, and regulation, be cause that would be either
devoid of content or would be interpreted in an anti-proletarian,
federalist spirit.

The Trudoviks have demonstrated to the municipalisers that I was
right.

Maslov must admit now that all the groups that voice the interests and
the point of view of the peasantry have declared in favour of nationalisation
in a form that will ensure the rights and powers of the local
self-governing bodies no less than in Maslov’s programme! The law defining
the powers of the local self-governing bodies is to be passed by the central
parliament. Maslov does not say that, but such ostrich-like tactics will be of
no avail, be cause no other procedure is conceivable.

The words “placed at the disposal” introduce the utmost
confusion. Nobody knows who are to be the
owners[3]
of the lands confiscated from the landlords! That being the case, the owner
can only be the state. What does “disposal” consist
of? What are to be its limits, forms, and conditions? That, too, will have
to be determined by the central parliament. That is self-evident,
and, moreover, in our Party’s programme special mention is shade of
“forests of national importance” and of “lands available,
for colonisation”. Obviously, only the central state authority is in
a position to single out the “forests of national
importance” from the general mass of forest land, and, the
“lands available for colonisation” from the total land area.

In short, the Maslov programme, which, in a particularly distorted form, has now
become the programme of our Party, is quite absurd in comparison with
the Trudovik programme.
No wonder Maslov found it necessary, in talking about nationalisation,
to drag in even the Napoleonic peasant in order to conceal from the public the
absurd position we have put ourselves in before the representatives of bourgeois
democracy by our muddled “municipalisation”!

The only difference between the two—a real essential difference—is
the attitude towards the peasants’ allotment lands. Maslov singled these out
only because he was afraid of a “Vend6e”. And it turned out that the
peasant deputies who were sent to the First and Second Dumas laughed at the
fears of the tail-ist Social-Democrats and declared in favour of the
nationalisation of their own lands!

The municipalisers should now oppose the Trudovik peasants and
urge them not to nationalise their lands. The irony of history has
brought the arguments of Maslov, John, Kostrov, and Co. tumbling down upon their
own heads.

Notes

[3]At the Stockholm Congress the Mensheviks rejected an amendment
to substitute for the words “placed at the disposal”, the words “made
the private property” (Minutes, p. 152). Only in the resolution on
tactics is it said, “in possession”, in the event of the
“victorious development of the revolution”, but it does not define more
precisely what that means. —Lenin

[4]The All-Russian Peasant Union— a
revolutionary-democratic organisation founded in 1905. The programme and
tactics of the Union were adopted at its first and second congresses held
in Moscow in August and November 1905. The Peasant Union demanded political
freedom and the immediate convocation of a constituent assembly, and
adhered to the tactics of boycotting the First Duma. The Union’s
agrarian programme called for the abolition of private ownership of the
land, and the transfer of monastery, crown and state lands to the peasants
without compensation. The Union, however, pursued a hall-hearted
vacillating policy. While demanding the abolition of landlordism, it agreed
to partial compensation for the landlords. From the very beginning of its
activities the Union was persecuted by the police. It ceased to exist early
in 1907.

[5]Rossiya (Russia)—a police-sponsored,
Black-Hundred newspaper, published in St. Petersburg from 1905 to
1914. From 1906 it was the official organ of the Ministry of the
Interior.